AndyFromCB

Any of the older V-Tails with a IO550 and VGs will do it with a ton of room to spare…

I don't really have a horror IMC story, but I was on my way to my hangar before my last engine issue. I took a look at the weather report one last time. It was essentially CAVU at my departure point and my destination, about 300nm. It was also 0/0 in between. I said screw this and I drove on "instruments" from Omaha to Fargo. Basically could barely see the hood of my truck. Guess what, next fight, against to Fargo, this time in fairly high IMC, my windshield gets covered in oil. Better lucky than good, I guess. I will not fly low IMC in any single (piston or turboprop, or for that matter jet) or any twin that will not maintain MEA. Quite frankly getting to a point in life, where if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going...

Have you also noticed how they have multiple crew cars, nice lounges, great WiFi, friendly staff, hangar space when it hails, 15 or 20 rental cars outside for those with no reservations and they'll drop everything and fix your leaking brakes in 30 minutes when you come back to your airplane after 5 days, yes, they had parts for my Bravo on hand. It all costs $$$, major $$$. $20 overnight for parking is still the best deal. Last time I flew into KDMW my parking was $20 for the airplane, would have been $37.50 for the rental at the hotel if Signature didn't give me a free ride to the Orange L, yes, free ride. Picked me up too, within 10 minutes of phone call, BTW, in a Range Rover.

He's promising a more compassionate, gentler inquisition this time around...

Why did it happen? I took a close look at the Ovation, Bravo and/or Acclaim and they don't look much different than the Rocket. What are you trying to say? Mooney was also categorically opposed to more than 280hp in the long body until of course they bought the STC for 310hp which happens to be the same number as the Rocket. There is nothing wrong with the Rocket and quite frankly there is more talent at Rocket Engineering than there ever was last Mooney other than maybe Al or Roy but those days are long, long gone...

Buy my Bravo. About to hit the market at $155,000 firm. About 3600 hours, about 200 since overhaul, everything works, everything overhauled in last 4 years. I have $220,000 in the airplane.

Actually, IIRC they didn't really have to do anything to the wing to make the Aerobat version...I don't think there has ever been an inflight break up of a 150, 152 or 172. The strutted wing bends and then unloads before there is any major damage.

There was one here over Lincoln, NE few years back that pulled 12G in a thunderstorm, landed with the wingtips about 6 inches higher than original, but landed ;-) 12G was factory estimate in order to cause the damage that it did...It takes a lot to break a Mooney. I know I tend to black out around 6Gs if I'm not ready for them and straining...which means I will probably break before the airplane does...

It would be my pleasure. I'll PM you next time we're heading that way. Breakfast at Perfect Landing is always a blast watching the students do touch and goes. My wife loves that place. I think we're going to be out there the week of the 12th but we haven't decided if we're going to fly or drive as we're heading to Estes for a whole week and want to drag the dogs with us. Buddy is getting long in the tooth and I feel the flight might not do him any good to spend 3 hours unpressurized.

Do you work for them or something? I've been thru 4 Gills before going concorde...

Actually, Most jets a limited to 10knot tailwind. And I mean limited, as in a clear FAR violation when broken. It's fun sitting at Aspen airport sometimes and watch the turboprops go while the jets wait for the tail wind to die down. Sometimes a KA is really a better tool than a Gulfstream...

Congratulations Joe, This is a great time to be alive, isn't it: life is good. Wishing you many more years of flying. Hope to catch you one day at KAPA. Go there all the time. Maybe breakfast or lunch at the cafe? Andy P.S. My worst war story is at KAPA. Three go arounds before landing. Seemed like 0 gusting to 30…My 3 engine failures seemed like a cake vs that day. Turbulence over and in front of the mountains is something else.

How about hitting the gym a few of times a week instead Might allow you to keep your medical longer, too...

Canon plug from mouser and a hangar fairy is all that's needed to install the plane power unit ;-) I fixed my Zeftronics unit on my Bravo 4 years ago, but I do carry a spare plane power unit (actually two, wired for my Bravo in case it dies again in remote location...

I like the guy, he was winning the war on drugs, one eight ball at a time...

Fixed that for ya. Changed it to my favorite Canadian, in your honor ;-)

That doesn't mean anything. My old boss, who was like 100 years old at the time, would stand at the pump an for 5 minutes try to justify putting premium in his Benz 600 (which BTW required it) and then go regular after a lengthy deliberation in his head. He was a multimillionaire too, about 300 times over and still would never pay to hangar the Lear. Never underestimate CBs. But in this case, you're probably right. Too bad he didn't land sooner, or on a longer runway with no flaps...Essentially, he run out of aileron...

I always lean on the ground because my sparks will foul if I don't and I mean they will do that in 5 minutes, but I make it a point to lean so much that my engine will simply die if I push the throttle forward without pushing the mixture. For me the difference is 3gph between fully leaned for ground ops and full rich at idle.

yeah, oil cooler issues with potential for gelling in flight levels...supposedly. 20W-50 has never let down so far.

Why not calibrate your fuel flow meter? I find the very useful for variety of reasons including knowing that my engine is doing what it's supposed to. If I'm not sucking down 30-32gph on take off, I know something is wrong. My last check before I yank on the yoke is a quick look at my fuel flow and engine analyzer. Then I have timers programmed to switch tanks every 1/2hour and check fuel/engine monitor/gauges every 15 minutes.

They sure do, look at the idiot that crashed the KA200 in Wichita about 1 year ago into Flight Safety building. He was alone, half fuel, close to sea level in the aircraft with auto feather and rudder boost. I don't understand what happened there. A snake in the cockpit?

BTW, pilots who run out of fuel not due to mechanical failure should be executed on the spot. As simple as that. I have two fuel gauges, two fuel flow gauges both with totalizers. If at anytime it looks like I'll be landing with less than 1.5 hours fuel at long range cruise (in my case, I need to land with at least 20 gallons total), I am finding a place to fuel up. In this day and age, with GPS, totalizers there is simply no reason to be out of fuel. Confirm fuel is onboard (both with your eyes and gauges), set the totalizer, confirm it's working, take another look every 15 minutes.

Doesn't get any easier than a twin turbine. Each engine consuming from own separate tank. PC12 accident comes to mind where the pilot severely mismanaged tanks and crashed into cemetery in MT due to fuel imbalance. Apparently was too damn cheap to put Prist into the tank and ice up fuel intake. On the TBM, the fuel tank switch is automatic. Kind of cool watching it spin every 10 minutes or so. On the Meridian, it's full auto as well, with an additional full auto balancing pump. There truly is no aircraft in the world easier to fly than Meridian. There is just nothing to do but fly the plane. Well, that a lie. Cessna Mustang is even easier to due to FADEC. If I could only come up with the $225K a year it run one. I've landed one once or twice, it has to be the easiest aircraft to land ever created. There is simply nothing to do. Come on speed, cross the threshold at 50 feet, pull the power. It flares itself. One limiting speed for everything, 250knots.

The issue with heavy piston twins is dispatch reliability. It's just not there. Turbines are built with more more robust systems, if anything, because they can be built heavier due to extra power. I wouldn't say that you can operate a cabin class twin any cheaper than a TBM, and certainly not cheaper than a Meridian. 414A will have engine and prop reserves in the same range, you will have the same $30K heated windshield and bunch of other systems. Don't forget that jet fuel is now half the price of 100LL, too. $2.50 is the going contract rate so a TBM is burning an equivalent of 27.5 gallons per hour of 100LL and doing 300knots, while a 414 is burning an equivalent of 64 gph of Jet A and doing 200knots. That's a 3rd more per NM basis. Issue number two is stall speed (but like I mentioned above, you have the same issue with TBM and PC12 at gross) if one dies and you can't climb due to density altitude. TBM is a dog at gross with no power, gold plated manhole cover, essentially. But so is a heavy piston twin if you have to crash land it under control. The issue is that the engine is about 100 times less likely to die on a TBM than it is on a Cessna 414A. And IIRC while the single engine ceiling is great on a 414A, the climb gradient is miserable. Something like 20 miles to get back to pattern altitude. Fine in day VFR, not so much in IMC. Statistics prove you wrong when it comes to piston twin comparison vs SETP. Look at insurance rates. 1/5th the rate. You can insure a 3 million TBM for less than a $500K Cessna 421. Per hour flow, they are comparable to TETP and are rated as such. There is no price differential between a PC12 and KA200 being that chance of PT6 failure is statistically insignificant. I would take a SETP any day over 340, 414 or 421 if I could personally swing the capital costs and depreciation. Meridian just seems to be the sweet spot for a family and small business aircraft. As to climbing thru ice, zoom climb. About the only way to climb an SETP thru heavy ice. But same can be said about a 414 or 421. Last time I was in a 421, we barely managed 500fpm at 18,000. A TBM, with an ice door open is still doing well over 1000fpm there but yes, you'll lose your rate of climb if you speed up to make the boots more effective. Only piston twin I like is a Seneca III. Good useful load, good single engine ceiling, good climb gradient (due to low climb speed) and stall speed below 61knots. Or a Navajo. 414 and 421 require CJ speeds without CJ power.

There really isn't much maintenance to the engine if run correctly until hot section and overhaul. That's when the sticker shock hits. All in think about $120 an hour vs $40 an hour for a six cylinder turbo charged engine. That also seems to be part pricing as well for a turbine bird, about 3x piston crowd. That's the nice thing about the conversions plus they stay on annual inspection program without calendar limited parts unlike a bird that was turboprop from the start. The calendar items kill you as a private owner. You really need to fly real turboprops/jets 600 hours a year before they make any sense. Take a king air for example. Most years the phase is about $15K, doesn't sound that bad. But every 6 years, you have to do the props and gear.: think $100K. The only factory turboprop bird out there designed with private usage in mind is Piper Meridian and you still run into issues. Magnesium inlet case on the PT6 has been giving people trouble as has the glass windshield. Both 30K items. Prop technically speaking needs to overhauled once every 6 years, but being it's a single turbine, FAA allows owners to skip that. But only on single turbines and really and since you only have one spinning, you probably want to take care of it. So the cheapest factory turbine (Meridian) will run you about $350 an hour before fuel, hangar, insurance and training...TBM about $500...That's why the conversions are so appealing...